Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J : p
The Case
For review is the decision promulgated on June 25, 2010 1 and the
resolution promulgated on February 16, 2011 in CA-G.R. CV No.
86735, 2 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petitioners'
complaint in Civil Case No. 96-81167, thereby respectively reversing and
setting aside the decision rendered on May 30, 2005 by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 32, in Manila, 3 and denying their motion for
reconsideration.
Antecedents
The CA adopted the summary by the RTC of the relevant factual and
procedural antecedents, as follows:
This is an action for injunction and quieting of title to determine
who owns the property occupied by the plaintiffs and intervenor,
Ciriano C. Mijares. HEITAD
Issues
The petitioners maintain that the CA erred in dismissing the complaint,
arguing that the parties had openly raised and litigated the boundary issue in
the RTC, and had thereby amended the complaint to conform to the evidence
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court; that they had the Comment [A1]: SECTION
5. Amendment to Conform to or
sufficient interest to bring the suit for quieting of title because they had built Authorize Presentation of Evidence.
their improvements on the property; and that the RTC correctly relied on the — When issues not raised by the
pleadings are tried with the express or
reports of the majority of the commissioners. implied consent of the parties, they
shall be treated in all respects as if
On its part, the City of Manila urges the Court to reinstate the decision they had been raised in the pleadings.
Such amendment of the pleadings as
of the RTC. It reprises the grounds relied upon by the petitioners, particularly may be necessary to cause them to
conform to the evidence and to raise
the application of Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court. 10 these issues may be made upon
motion of any party at any time, even
In response, Patricia, Inc. counters that the boundary dispute, which the after judgment; but failure to amend
does not affect the result of the
allegations of the complaint eventually boiled down to, was not proper in the trial of these issues. If evidence is
action for quieting of title under Rule 63, Rules of Court; and that Section 5, objected to at the trial on the ground
that it is not within the issues made by
Rule 10 of the Rules of Court did not apply to vest the authority to resolve the the pleadings, the court may allow the
boundary dispute in the RTC. 11 pleadings to be amended and shall do
so with liberality if the
presentation of the merits of the action
In other words, did the CA err in dismissing the petitioners' complaint? and the ends of substantial justice will
be subserved thereby. The court may
Ruling of the Court grant a continuance to enable the
amendment to be made. (5a)
The appeal lacks merit.
1.
Jurisdiction over a real action depends on
the assessed value of the property involved
as alleged in the complaint
The complaint was ostensibly for the separate causes of action for
injunction and for quieting of title. As such, the allegations that would support
both causes of action must be properly stated in the complaint. One of the
important allegations would be those vesting jurisdiction in the trial court.
The power of a court to hear and decide a controversy is called its
jurisdiction, which includes the power to determine whether or not it has the
authority to hear and determine the controversy presented, and the right to
decide whether or not the statement of facts that confer jurisdiction exists, as
well as all other matters that arise in the case legitimately before the court.
Jurisdiction imports the power and authority to declare the law, to expound or
to apply the laws exclusive of the idea of the power to make the laws, to hear
and determine issues of law and of fact, the power to hear, determine, and
pronounce judgment on the issues before the court, and the power to inquire
into the facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce the judgment. 12
But judicial power is to be distinguished from jurisdiction in that the
former cannot exist without the latter and must of necessity be exercised
within the scope of the latter, not beyond it. 13ETHIDa
The complaint of the petitioners did not contain any averment of the
assessed value of the property. Such failure left the trial court bereft of any
basis to determine which court could validly take cognizance of the cause of
action for quieting of title. Thus, the RTC could not proceed with the case and
render judgment for lack of jurisdiction. Although neither the parties nor the
lower courts raised jurisdiction of the trial court in the proceedings, the issue
did not simply vanish because the Court can hereby motu proprio consider
and resolve it now by virtue of jurisdiction being conferred only by law, and
could not be vested by any act or omission of any party. 36
2.
The joinder of the action for injunction
and the action to quiet title
was disallowed by the Rules of Court
Another noticeable area of stumble for the petitioners related to their
having joined two causes of action, i.e., injunction and quieting of title, despite
the first being an ordinary suit and the latter a special civil action under Rule
63. Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court disallowed the joinder, viz.:
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action. — A party may in one
pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as many causes of
action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or
actions governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be
allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies
therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test
of jurisdiction.
Consequently, the RTC should have severed the causes of action,
either upon motion or motu proprio, and tried them separately, assuming it
had jurisdiction over both. Such severance was pursuant to Section 6, Rule 2
of the Rules of Court, which expressly provides:
Section 6. Misjoinder of causes of action. — Misjoinder of
causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined
cause of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the
court, be severed and proceeded with separately. (n)
The refusal of the petitioners to accept the severance would have led to
the dismissal of the case conformably with the mandate of Section, Rule 17 of
the Rules of Court, to wit:SDAaTC
At this juncture, the Court observes that the fact that the area was
declared an area for priority development (APD) under Presidential Decree
No. 1967, as amended, did not provide sufficient interest to the petitioners.
When an area is declared as an APD, the occupants would enjoy the benefits
provided for in Presidential Decree No. 1517 (Proclaiming Urban Land Reform
in the Philippines and Providing for the Implementing Machinery Thereof).
In Frilles v. Yambao, 43 the Court has summarized the salient features
of Presidential Decree No. 1517, thus:
P.D. No. 1517, which took effect on June 11, 1978, seeks to
protect the rights of bona-fide tenants in urban lands by prohibiting
their ejectment therefrom under certain conditions, and by according
them preferential right to purchase the land occupied by them. The law
covers all urban and urbanizable lands which have been proclaimed as
urban land reform zones by the President of the Philippines. If a
particular property is within a declared Area for Priority Development
and Urban Land Reform Zone, the qualified lessee of the said
property in that area can avail of the right of first refusal to
purchase the same in accordance with Section 6 of the same law.
Only legitimate tenants who have resided for ten years or more on
specific parcels of land situated in declared Urban Land Reform
Zones or Urban Zones, and who have built their homes thereon, have
the right not to be dispossessed therefrom and the right of first
refusal to purchase the property under reasonable terms and
conditions to be determined by the appropriate government
agency. [Bold emphasis supplied]
Presidential Decree No. 1517 only granted to the occupants of APDs
the right of first refusal, but such grant was true only if and when the owner of
the property decided to sell the property. Only then would the right of first
refusal accrue. Consequently, the right of first refusal remained contingent,
and was for that reason insufficient to vest any title, legal or equitable, in the
petitioners.
Moreover, the CA's adverse judgment dismissing their complaint as far
as the action to quiet title was concerned was correct. The main requirement
for the action to be brought is that there is a deed, claim, encumbrance, or
proceeding casting cloud on the plaintiffs' title that is alleged and shown to be
in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
legal efficacy, the eliminates the existence of the requirement. Their
admission of the genuineness and authenticity of Patricia, Inc.'s title negated
the existence of such deed, instrument, encumbrance or proceeding that was
invalid, and thus the action must necessarily fail.
4.
The petitioners did not have
a cause of action for injunction
The petitioners did not also make out a case for injunction in their favor.
The nature of the remedy of injunction and the requirements for the
issuance of the injunctive writ have been expounded in Philippine Economic
Zone Authority v. Carantes, 44 as follows: SDHTEC
116-141)